Seems like common sense to me, but why don't QB's go short to long on their reads?

[Diehardpanther02]

Just now, PrimeTimeHeel said:

Cam is 6'5, line of sight shouldnt be an issue. 

Progressions is the reads. 

 

This also is an irrelevant fact. 6'5 makes no difference with 6'5 D lineman running in your face with your hands up. Line of sight is dictated by the passing lanes that open due to pass rush.

[PrimeTimeHeel]

1 minute ago, pantherclaw said:

I'm  not worried about correcting you with your holier than thou statements. 

Goodbye

[Diehardpanther02]

Just now, PrimeTimeHeel said:

Yes, I was talking about the actual full play and assignments. 

Of course you can get some generalities and have an idea of certain things. 

In a cover 2 it depends how deep the MLB drops back. Also there are different variations of cover two. 

Also depends if they are playing hard flats or not. So many variables even if you know whether its cover 2 or 3 etc. 

 

The generalities and the basics of coverage determines progression.

[PrimeTimeHeel]

Just now, Diehardpanther02 said:

This also is an irrelevant fact. 6'5 makes no difference with 6'5 D lineman running in your face with your hands up. Line of sight is dictated by the passing lanes that open due to pass rush.

Possibly.... 

[PrimeTimeHeel]

2 minutes ago, Diehardpanther02 said:

The generalities and the basics of coverage determines progression.

As I said, I disagree with this. 

Or the premise. 

Now, the basics of coverages absolutely should affect the play call, but IMO not the progressions. 

Always look short and make them take away the easy stuff. Not on 3rd and long ofcourse. 

If the short is covered then most likely the middle and deep will be open assuming you called a good play. 

[pantherclaw]

Until one accepts that a qb can and does read coverages, PrimeTimeHeel, you can keep spewing whatever you want to that you know nothing about.

[PrimeTimeHeel]

If you are looking deep 1st, it takes time for those routes to develop. Considering QBs usually only have about 3 seconds to pass the ball, you only have time for 1 or 2 reads. Most teams take away the deep 1st. So this is just a recipe for disaster. 

If you go short to long you allow yourself more time for reads. 

CMC out in the flats right after the snap (1 second)

Smauel on a shallow drag across the middle (2 second)

Funchess on a inside post route (3 second)

etc. 

When I watched the Chiefs, they used the hell out of quick curl routes. Ball was usually always out in 3 seconds. 

 

[PrimeTimeHeel]

1 minute ago, pantherclaw said:

Until one accepts that a qb can and does read coverages, PrimeTimeHeel, you can keep spewing whatever you want to that you know nothing about.

Who said or claimed they didnt?

[pantherclaw]

The same play has many different options all based on coverage. 

From presnap reads, to while the qb is making his drop back. 

[Diehardpanther02]

5 minutes ago, PrimeTimeHeel said:

As I said, I disagree with this. 

Or the premise. 

Now, the basics of coverages absolutely should affect the play call, but IMO not the progressions. 

Always look short and make them take away the easy stuff. Not on 3rd and long ofcourse. 

If the short is covered then most likely the middle and deep will be open assuming you called a good play. 

Thats not necassarily true either. If you always look short then you are playing not to lose similar to the way Alex Smith played in years past. You look short automatically you could miss a game changing chunk play down the field. By going short medium long the window for the deep ball couldve closed by now.  To many variables to live strictly by this idea. The drives will eventually stall. You have to mix it up to keep a defense honest. 

And the timing you have for those routes are completely speculation. 1 second in flats maybe, but a drag across the middle and a post pattern could open at different points depending on how the qb manipulates the pocket. You are leaving out a ton of different aspects of the play that effect the eyes of the qb, what coverage, blitz or no blitz, number of pass rushers I could go on forever. 

[pantherclaw]

15 minutes ago, PrimeTimeHeel said:

You do not know what the actual coverage is, so it doesnt really matter.

 

You did. 

 

[PrimeTimeHeel]

6 minutes ago, Diehardpanther02 said:

Thats not necassarily true either. If you always look short then you are playing not lose similar to thenway Alex Smith played in years past. You look short automatically you could miss a game changing chunk play down the field. By going short mediim long the window for the deep ball couldve closed by now.  To many variables to live strictly by this idea. The drives will eventually stall. You have to mix it up to keep a defense honest. 

That makes no sense.

The goal is to move the chains and score touchdowns. 

If the D is giving you the short stuff and you keep hitting it and marching up the field and scoring TDs. 

How is that playing to lose?

Playing to lose is more like doing dumb stuff to cause sacks, turnovers and 3 and outs. 

 

[PrimeTimeHeel]

1 minute ago, pantherclaw said:

You did. 

 

huh? 

can you explain? 

[pantherclaw]

3 minutes ago, PrimeTimeHeel said:

If you are looking deep 1st, it takes time for those routes to develop. Considering QBs usually only have about 3 seconds to pass the ball, you only have time for 1 or 2 reads. Most teams take away the deep 1st. So this is just a recipe for disaster. 

If you go short to long you allow yourself more time for reads. 

CMC out in the flats right after the snap (1 second)

Smauel on a shallow drag across the middle (2 second)

Funchess on a inside post route (3 second)

etc. 

When I watched the Chiefs, they used the hell out of quick curl routes. Ball was usually always out in 3 seconds. 

 

All based on coverage, and ultimately, negating the denver pass rush.